People v. Rivera CA6

── People v. Rivera CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/17/26 P. v. Rivera CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H052201 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2113713, C2208034) v. JULIAN SALVADOR MARTINEZ RIVERA, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Julian Salvador Martinez Rivera pleaded no contest to one count of causing a fire (Pen. Code, § 452, subd. (c))1 in Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. C2113713 (Case No. ’3713) and one count of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)) in Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. C2208034 (Case No. ’8034). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Martinez Rivera on concurrent three-year terms of formal probation. On appeal, Martinez Rivera argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) not renewing his application for mental health diversion based on a change to the law effective January 1, 2023; and (2) for not objecting to the three-year term of probation imposed at sentencing on the ground that it exceeded the two-year term he agreed to in his global plea bargain. The parties waived oral argument, and the case was submitted by order filed on October 14, 2025. On December 8, 2025, we vacated submission on our own motion and, by separate 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 letter, requested supplemental briefing from the parties. Based on our review of the record, the dockets in Case No. ’3713 and Case No. ’8034 were not consolidated in the trial court and therefore remain separate. We asked the parties to “address whether the order of probation in Case No. ’3713, based on appellant’s conviction for a violation of Penal Code 452, subdivision (c), is an unauthorized sentence under Penal Code section 1203.1 and, if so, what remedy is appropriate.” As we explain below, we do not agree that Martinez Rivera received ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to renew his application for mental health diversion based on a change to the law effective January 1, 2023. However, the Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that the trial court’s order of probation in Case No. ’3713 is an unauthorized sentence. Because both Case No. ’8034 and Case No. ’3713 were resolved by way of a global plea agreement, we will reverse both orders of probation. On remand, the trial court shall withdraw its approval of the global plea agreement and restore the parties to the status quo ante. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedure On November 23, 2021, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an information in Case No. ’3713, charging Martinez Rivera with three felony counts of arson (§ 451, subd. (c)) and one misdemeanor count of petty theft (§ 488). On November 21, 2022, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an information in Case No. ’8034, charging Martinez Rivera with one count of felony carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)). The information in Case No. ’8034 also alleged the following aggravating factors: 1) that Martinez Rivera was armed with or used a weapon when committing the offense (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(2)); and 2) Martinez Rivera has engaged in violent conduct that indicates